It's Not Sustainable, it's unjust, it's immoral . . .

Grab your coffee . . . this is long.  If you don't have a lot of time, just read the first link!

My goal here is not to impress my ideas upon you so much as to share with you the cogently and / or eloquently stated ideas of others.  The words of Vandana Shiva, which you will hear upon clicking the link below, fall into the category of both.  (We'll get to my ideas, less cogent and less eloquent, a little later.)  Give her a listen.

http://youtu.be/vi1FTCzDSck

If you're a follower of such things, then you already know the damage that Monsanto has done in India.  Google India and farmer suicides and you'll have all sorts to read about. 

Everyone here would probably accept the proposition that we are facing an epidemic of childhood disease.  Incidence is up.  While we continue to streamline daily life, our health unravels - this generation will die at a younger age than its parents, and that's something new in modern times.  So what's going on?  Everyone here would probably accept the proposition that something is going on with our children.  But each of us has his own vested interest in status quo.  It's no different if you're a farmer.  But if you're a farmer as well as a parent, how do you reconcile status quo with the new reality?  I suspect that you would deny like hell any theory that impacts your situation.  Ideals are a beautiful thing but they don't pay the  mortgage.  (And I don't think it's just farmers; my children's father provides for us by installing lawn sprinklers.  The landscape and irrigation industry contributes to water waste and water pollution, widespread pesticide and synthetic fertilizer application, and - in general - a manner of using land that relies upon and perpetutes a nonsustainability approach.  I've talked to him about changing his methods, but he says people don't care about "green" when it comes to their yards, and unfortunately, I think he may be right.) 

What non-farm folk may not always realize is that all of that corn and all of those soybeans aren't just for human food.  According to the National Corn Growers Association, only about 12% of our corn crop is for human consumption, and that consumption includes corn products such as corn starch and high fructose corn syrup, not just popcorn and corn-on-the-cob.  The bulk of the crop - 80% - feeds livestock.  And our corn-fed cattle are facing a health epidemic of their own. 

We all know that human infertility is a gajillion-dollar industry (I just made that up,) but did you know that cattle have fertility problems?  Please take 20 minutes (I know that's a long time, but bear with me) to watch the video, linked below.  An ag scientist has been concerned about cattle infertility and wants to share with you what he's learned about the problem - and its possible connections to agriculture on a larger scale.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dr_hubers_warning/

His comments about alfalfa as the number-one forage crop - and the risks implicit in the GMO alfalfa - pretty chilling.  And his comment at the end:  what's the urgency?  Wow.

Not shockingly, Monsanto - the manufacturer of Roundup as well as Roundup-Ready Alfalfa - had its own take on Dr. Huber's claims.  Here it is:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/huber-pathogen-roundup-ready-crops.aspx

Now, there's all sorts of references in there.  The NPDRS wasn't aware of Huber's claims (so what;)  tests by "multiple U.S. universities" and by Monsanto do not corroborate Dr. Huber's findings;  Monsanto has determined its products to be safe and no one else's claims to the contrary have been verified.  (By Monsanto, presumably.)  This is meaningless.  If you read the three univerities' takes on Dr. Huber, they are remarkably repetitious.  I assume these three constitute the "multiple U.S. universities" that Monsanto refers to.  Even Monsanto's response boils down to one sentence:  We don't know anyone who can support Huber's claims, and our research doesn't support Huber's claims.  Well, duh.

If more people were paying attention to Huber, I'd expect to see a smear campaign, but he's fairly obscure.  If he were getting more attention, I'm sure we'd hear about his financial stake in destroying GMOs or maybe his internet girlfriend that's really a man, but there's no need to fabricate this kind of stuff when no one's listening anyway.  Attacking the speaker is a classic logical fallacy, but folks the world over fall for it.  (Not that exploring one's loyalties isn't a valid inquiry - it certainly is.)  We don't ask the next question.   I'm guilty of this myself. 

What's alarming to me is that the lack of research is used as an argument to change nothing.  The bulk of the evidence says that GMOs are safe, we are assured.  And that's largely true.  But the bulk of the research is also produced by the biotech industry itself, whose profits depend upon a particular outcome, and that should make their research suspect.  But it doesn't, for some reason.  Because in America, we insist upon ignoring the alarm bells.  Gets in the way of progress, see. 

I became an anti-progress crusader not when my daughter got cancer, not when my nephew got autism, but when - during my search for the reasons - I got sidetracked.  I kept reading headlines and bylines that said government is interfering with business, government is hampering growth, overregulation is rampant - but the facts said otherwise, if you read further.  They said that government isn't even really a factor.  It's the corporation that's running things, and big money is intentionally souring our taste for government so that we'll surrender the only power we have in favor of their self-interested promise of lucre.  Well, they have certainly delivered . . .  to themselves, that is!  And government stands impotently by.  What a bunch of cowards we turned out to be.  My lightbulb moment had arrived.  This is nothing new; read some Nicholo Machiavelli. 

The reason that the idea of money as power is so intoxicating in America is that we've all been fed this notion, from birth, that we too can share in that power.  It matters not from whose family you come.  This is America and everyone has the same opportunity.  (Rrrrright.)  Money is power and we're all okay with that, because we think it's within our reach, if we just play the game long enough.

The promise of opportunity is the new opium for America's masses. 

Please take a moment to read one European's take on Monsanto's pro-GMO campaign in the European Union at the turn of the century.  It's an intelligent piece and it's shorter than the first two links - I know, this takes awhile.  But it's so important.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/monsantos-claim-that-gm-crops-will-end-third-world-hunger-is-spurious-says-joan-ruddock-1070874.html

If you glossed over the term "precautionary principle,"  take a second to understand what it entails.  The precautionary principle simply holds that if any action or policy has any suspected risk of causing harm to the people or the environment (and therefore to people,) then - in the absence of a consensus in the scientific community that the policy is actually harmful -  the burden of proving that it's not harmful falls on those taking the action.  We don't do that here, folks.  Nope.  In America, we do the opposite.  We allow Monsanto to market its GMOs with minimal proof of safety, and the proof comes from Monsanto.  Anyone possessing contradictory evidence really has no recourse.  The EPA lacks the power, the FDA lacks the power (and perhaps the will,) and the USDA . . . well, who knows what they're thinking. 

It is an accepted notion in scientific inquiry that an idea should be tested, and tested, and tested again - without self-interest regarding the outcome.  When Monsanto is providing the research, it is immediately suspect.  The almighty dollar tends to color our perceptions.


If you're a farmer who grows Cargill's corn, do you think your perception might be just a little colored?  Could it not be, really?  Where do you go with the dawning realization that you're participating in something offensive to the earth that you work?  You can't just say "take this job and shove it."  And those corporations have worked out those bugs; you are replaceable.  You wouldn't make a dent in their business plan.

Back to the precautionary principle.  It's really nothing more than "we don't know, so let's hold off until we do, given the risk of harm."  Let me ask you, why do you think NutriGrain is able to justify coloring its fruitbars packaged for sale in the European Union with natural extracts but still uses FD&C red and yellow in its American market?  Why doesn't the European Union let NutriGrain market its artifically-colored bars in its member nations?  Because the EU follows the precautionary principle. 

We can do better than this!  Demand it. Demand labeling, demand safety standards.  Demand nutritious and non-toxic food for your kids.  Call your senators and ask them to support S. 847 and to implement labeling of products containing GMOs. 

And if you oppose labeling of GMOs, let me ask you . . . why???  If they're substantial equivalents of traditional crops, why do you fear labeling?  Glyphosate is known to cause reproductive problems.  That's in humans, by the way, not just cows as Dr. Huber claims.  If you think this is paranoia, please know that this well-accepted belief is printed in the water-testing materials of certain university extensions, including Penn State's (follow the link if you need proof.)
http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/agrs90.pdf

This stuff is exhausting.  While we were busy chasing our tails, the world went crazy.  My baby had to get cancer for me to wake up and realize it.  What a wake up call that was.  Support labeling laws!  It may be too late to stop the food-patenting trend, but it's not too late to require labeling.

 It's an old trick:  price the competition out of business.  Make the prices so low that your competitors go out of business, and then charge what you wanna because there's no competition left.  That, my friends, is where we'll be.  GMOs make cheap packaged convenience foods, but will it be that way forever?   And on a larger scale . . . is corporate America using the same "price the competition out of business" scheme to negate government?  Think about it.  We're all on the "get government out of my business" wagon, but who really stands to benefit once governnment is completely irrelevant?  And then what?  What are we going to do about it when the lightbulb comes on?

"Big govenrment" can hurt big business.  That's why we're being sold this lie:  they want their money.  Monsanto doesn't care about starving people in Africa any more than Countrywide cares about the families they evicted in foreclosure actions.  It is an accepted proposition that the sole purpose of the corporation is to make a profit.  Sometimes the profit motive doesn't mesh with our moral code.  (I personally think it's immoral for a corporation to accept money from the government to help keep people in their homes, then continue to evict them and then put the same homes back on the market for less money than the owners owed, but it's all about the money.  We're talking about corporations.)

So put on your big-kid undies, put away the magical thinking, and see what's going on.  I realize that we can't all change careers on a whim and a notion, especially when those banks are just salivating over potential foreclosure opportunities, but maybe we should recognize the truth in our manner of existence and strive, bit by bit, to do better.  Can you, over time, convert your acres of Cargill corn to something more healthful for people and their planet?  There's a reason why the really smart people are more worried about topsoil erosion than they are about climate change . . . the threat is far more iminent and we can place a finger on a whole bunch of spots on a map that exist as proof of what happens when topsoil is depleted.  The very cradle of civilization is a desert, and while that happened over the course of many generations, there are other examples of similar situations occurring in just a few. 

The four horsemen may well be saddling up as we speak, and the current agricultural practices may be hastening their ride. 

So.  It may seem like a gigantic logical leap to get through all of that to just say "buy locally," but this is already a marathon blog entry.  Eat the meat that's raised in your town; find out how they're fed, whether they're confined.  It really does matter (grassfed beef is higher in Omega-3s, and grainfed is higher in Omega-6s - the health implications in that difference are immense.)  Can you avoid foods made with GMOs?  Sure you can.  Ditch the hot pockets and the frozen pizza, and try making 'em homemade.  Even if you accidentally put some GMO-containing cheese in there (the cows are fed GMO grain, and then their milk makes cheese) you're way ahead of the guy who's eating a Tony's pizza.  Unless Tony's doesn't use GMOs.  I have no idea, actually.  Just picked a random brand. 

There are times, however, when buying locally is actually the wrong answer.  Try to eat what's grown locally, what grows naturally in your area.  Rice grown in Arizona?  Forget about it.  Too much water waste.  It takes some serious thought, but of all the things you spend your money on - and time in the shower worrying about - what could be more worthy than the food with which you fuel your body? 

The Standard American Diet is defined as a high-grain, usually a highly processed grain, and low produce diet, and it's been the subject of many a study that concluded it was the cause of so much chronic disease.  How does that result in sick kids?  Because our sick bodies can't produce healthy offspring as easily as our bodies would in a healthier state.   And our genes get messed up over time, and we pass those messes on through our offspring.  (Remember epigenetics?)

So don't say "you've gotta die somehow," or "if it's not one thing it's another."  That's a coward's way.  We are not cowards.  We are willing to speak truth when we find it, because we've suffered the consequences of so many fallacies that prevail in our modern society.  I'll leave you with one more thought, and it's provocative if you're a modern farmer, but it's important.

One of the most stirring arguments in favor of the GMO crops is their alleged high yields, which possess the potential to feed the world, end all starvation.  Usually at this point I would talk about the brutal politics that get in the way of feeding the poor in Africa, but that just ends up pissing me off when someone says something racist (we white people are the ones that went all global and messed up Africa in the first place.)  So here's another approach.  You think your food will save the world, do you? 

We all know that those crops sell for less than it costs you to produce them.  Prices are fixed, and we export all over the place because we just have so darn much.  But not everywhere that we export crops is incapable of producing their own; in fact, this is so of very few places at all.  What happens is that you price the "competition" out of business, but this time the "competition" is a subsistence farmer who can't afford to buy your cheap crops anyway because he's lost his source of income.  So even with all of your cheap food, his family still starves. 

Feed the world, indeed.

What it's really about is a few corporations wanting an ever-larger slice of the pie.  It's what they do.  See through the publicity campaigns to the truth of what corporations do.  It's not different with food . . . just maybe a little more immoral. 

GMOs are a huge topic.  There are aspects to the debate that I haven't really touched.  But I'll leave those for another day.  I wish I'd had more time to edit this into something comprehensive and comprehensible, but a mother's time at the keyboard is forever inadequate for such an endeavor.

Of course, if you're one of those people who believes that God made your kid sick, that it was his will, then none of this will make a bit of sense.  See, I don't buy into that.  I have read Job.  Lots of times, in fact, especially when I was hating God and what he'd done to my family.  I was so mad at God but I didn't want to ditch him, because I needed to believe that he was going to help me out.  While most people take from Job that we're supposed to never question God and just accept the hardships that he sends us, I didn't get that at all.  I got that God DIDN'T send those hardships - he simply allowed them.  And he rewarded Job for his enduring faith, even when Job himself raged at God.  And . . . he reprimanded the three buddies that tried to explain to Job why God had picked on him in the first place. 

Your child's illness may or may not be God's will.  I don't know.  The more likely explanation is that your kid is sick because we, greedy and clueless as we are, ruined our earth and our own bodies with sin, and we're reaping the consequences.  To put that on God is to say it's his fault we ever got evicted from Eden. 
We did this.  We're still doing this.  And we should stop.